Sources Please: Follow These Do's and Don'ts of Science Citation

Science Citation

Citations are a pain in the neck. Nobody likes citing, everybody hates citing, and by all accounts, citing ought to go eat worms. Nevertheless, nothing gives your book the legitimacy it needs like a correctly cited source. Plus, there’s something about all those neat rows of publication dates lined up in a bibliography that gives your hard work a nice, classy polish. If the world of citation seems overwhelming, never fear. Here, in a short and easy series of do’s and don’t’s, I’m going to lay the whole bag of snakes out straight for you.

DON’T not cite: There was an exercise that we used to do in library school that doubled as a pretty good drinking game. The gist was that we’d find a questionable source of medical or scientific information online and take a shot every time it failed to cite a relevant fact.

Most people, alas, must read scientific works while sober. For them, the lack of citations is no game, but rather an irritation that will cause them to stop reading and never take you seriously again. Even if your ideas are outside of the mainstream, you’ll impress the right readers if you’ve done your due citation diligence.

Remember, you want to cite everything, no matter how obvious it seems. Sounds nuts, right? Well, mad scientists have to come from somewhere.

DO use a standard style: When citing, keep in mind that science-minded people who read your science-y work are going to be obligated to check your bibliography. It’s not exactly a fun thing to do on a Saturday night, but the less trouble it gives them, the more they’ll be able to focus on your ideas. That’s why you want to use a nice, regular writing and citation style. You have options: APA, MLA, Chicago, or Turabian are all admissible styles, though you usually see MLA in the humanities. My personal favorite is APA, the citation and writing style of the American Psychiatric Association. It’s sleek, it’s all business, and it’s not too tough to nail down. The OWL at Purdue is among the best style guides anywhere, and it covers APA extensively.

DON’T Cite Wikipedia: The problem isn’t that Wikipedia isn’t accurate—in fact, it famously rivals the Encyclopedia Britannica for completeness and exactitude. I use Wikipedia all the time, and I’m a goddamn librarian. Wikipedia is a great tool for research … with a huge grain of salt. See, the problem with Wikipedia isn’t accuracy—it’s consistency.

When you cite a source, you’re providing your reader with a road map. Imagine if you drew a road map, and then the road moved. Maybe a little, maybe a lot, maybe it still gets to the same place. The point is this: the map isn’t right. Citing Wikipedia is like drawing a map of a landscape that’s constantly changing. Don’t expect your readers to dig through pages of update logs to try and find the right version of the page you cited; plenty of people won’t be tech-savvy enough to know how to do that.

DO Cite What Wikipedia Cites: That said, Wikipedia very often has some great sourcing that you can steal. Know those little in-text superscript numbers? Those link to a list of references at the bottom of each page, which in turn cite (and sometimes link to) the sources that support the article. If the source is a high-quality, relevant piece of work, then you’ve hit gold. Go ahead and get your hands on that piece of literature, because it probably has a ton of other information that you want. Incidentally, this acquisition process for your sources doesn’t have to be expensive. Ask a librarian—any librarian—about the miraculous phenomenon known as Inter-Library Loan.

DON’T cite weak sources: Imagine your work as the apex of a pyramid. The gigantic foundation stones are the Big Works—Newton’s and Einstein’s and Fermi’s work. On top of them are works whose ideas are based on the Big Works. On top of those are works that cite works that cite the big ones, and so on, until you come along. You cite the sixth or seventh generation of works based on Einstein’s theories, which is no problem. The kicker is that your entire pyramid is only as strong as the weakest block. That’s why you should always check the citations of your citations very thoroughly. If you find stuff that makes you look twice—for example, conclusions taken out of context (“the moon isn’t made of cheese, indicating that it must be made of bread”)—then find another source.

DO cite modern sources: You don’t need to use research that was current in 1902—that stuff isn’t cool anymore. Finding recent sources helps to ensure not only that you’ll look bleeding edge, but that you’ll be using the most accurate information possible. Plus, modern-day researchers get bonus points for being alive and potentially interested in passing your book around their department.

DON’T give up: It’s a slog, science citation is. My experience suggests that the process stops being fun just about three seconds in. Every time you’re about to throw up your hands, think of the sweet, sweet legitimacy that citation can give you. Think of the pinpoint accuracy of your sources, the expertise that you demonstrate, the scientific conversation that you are continuing, and cite, cite cite!


Anna Call
Anna Call is a freelance writer who blogs about science for Foreword Reviews. You can follower on Twitter @evil_librarian

Anna Call

Load Next Article